September 15, 2010

I didn't vote in the Wisconsin primary. And I took refuge in the back of my house many times when candidates — actual candidates, not their acolytes — rang my doorbell in the hope of getting to talk to me personally. They left handwritten "sorry I missed you" notes.

Like many Americans, I have an aversion to politics. I may write about politics every day, but it's from a distance... an intentional, heartfelt distance.

68 comments:

As the scope and reach of government grows, as the downstream impacts of trillion-dollar deficits make themselves felt on your standard of living, politics has become a big and intrusive part of your life, whether you wish it or not.

I hide from the candidates, too, but for completely different reasons. I hide because when I ask them questions like "when you say you're a 'Progressive Democrat' on your flyer, that's a synonym for 'Leftist', isn't it?" they get really snippy with me.

I live in a very "Progressive" district in MD, and that there are even moderate conservatives like myself in the district seems to strike these candidates as akin to running into a unicorn with their car.

I did vote in the Republican Primary. Surprisingly, no one I voted for -- that I recall -- won. Which is to say, the Republican Senatorial candidate I was most likely to vote for in the General Election didn't win the primary, nor did the Republican Gubernatorial Candidate I voted for.

I wish they'd cancel the weekly radio sermon by the president. I wish we would stop looking to Washington to solve everything. I wish we'd go back to fixing our own problems locally. Pawlenty was right when he said the states have become addicted to the fed money as if it is free.

As I've said before, I didn't vote in the last presidential election. I'd never vote for a Democrat, and I've had it with Republicans. It will take a new party, with new ideas to get to me take the time and vote again.

I voted in a primary for the first time ever. There were just too many stories of Democrats trying to undermine the Republican Gubernatorial race. It looks like there were quite a few others who felt the same way. I can't wait until November!

See my previous post: we're a representative, self-governing citizenry. How else to solve our problems than through our political process? (I know you're referring to the Federal government, which brings me to your next sentence.)

"I wish we'd go back to fixing our own problems locally."

It seems this should be a locally addressed wish: go to your city or country or state government, with as many like-minded citizens as you can muster, and request or demand less reliance on the federal government and on federal dollars. You'll probably see an increase in your local and state taxes--assuming you can effect this return to mostly local politics as the means to address local issues.

Citizens who disengage from the political process are voting their tacit approval for whatever the government does in our name.

No, we're not.

We're acknowledging that it really doesn't make fucking much difference.

This is where you always go wrong, Cookie. The defects of the political system are, in fact, the normal defects of humans.

Humans are a lot of things. One of the things they are is crappy, self-interesting and corruptible. No matter who is elected, you can count on them to be crappy, self-interesting and corruptible.

As I've gotten older, I've learned to trust conservatives more because they acknowledge that people (including themselves) are crappy, self-interesting and corruptible. This is a good thing. Cynicism is a powerful block to people who want the government to do something about whatever.

On the other hand, your moral blindspot is your failure to understand that all people are crappy, self-interesting and corruptible. So, you think that somebody or something out there offers salvation.

That's what makes you a monster.

I don't want the government to solve problems. I want it to be as small as possible and to do as little as possible. Clean the streets, man the fire department and stay out of my business.

I live in a very population dense area in Ohio. As a result door to door types love to cover our neighborhood. Like you I used to hide, but now the evil side of my personality has taken over and I like to play mind games with them.

Politician: "Can I count on your vote?"

Me: "I can't vote."

Politician: "Oh, are you registered in another state?"

Me: "Nah. Had two felonies. Man two and aggravated assault. Had to pull a full nickel (5 years). Lucasville no less."

This seems disingenuous to me as your blog frequently focuses on politics and you do make heartfelt engagements such as your blog on Christine O'Donnell. Obviously politics are a big part of your life and this blog--not that there is anything wrong with that.

I will always sign nominating papers, no matter who is asking, or what the cause.

I've never had someone come up on the street and ask me to vote for them. Even a visit to my house is extremely rare, and it's usually a local election, so I'll listen, then wish them luck and they're on their way. If it's local, odds are that you either know the person, or you share mutual friends.

I have a no trespassing sign right at the sidewalk. When someone knocks or rings the bell and starts their little talk, I kindly ask them if they are able to read. I usually get the dear in the headlights look. I repeat it, asking if they at least completed the first grade. (One moron actually told Me he had a Master's Degree- as if that means something.)

Then I escort them down the stairs to the sidewalk. I point to the sign. I ask- "What part of no trespassing don't you understand?"

"We're acknowledging that it really doesn't make fucking much difference."

At present, voting doesn't make much difference, as both parties are in thrall to the oligarchs, and neither party considers we, the people, to be their true constituency. Moreover, too few people are well-informed, rational actors, and we are thus prey to the fear-mongers and liars who seek to influence our decisions in favor of furtherance of their goals, not ours. Plus, too few people vote.

Political engagment involves things other than just voting: organizing, joining together with like-minded others to apply pressure on those in office to address our concerns, mounting opposition parties and candidates, etc. Isn't that what the Tea Partiers assume they're doing? (Of course, that they're funded in secret by billionaires means that whomever they manage to elect will continue politics as usual, i.e., the interests of big business will be served.)

"The defects of the political system are, in fact, the normal defects of humans."

Of course. How could it be otherwise?

"Humans are a lot of things. One of the things they are is crappy, self-interesting and corruptible. No matter who is elected, you can count on them to be crappy, self-interesting and corruptible."

Of course. How could it be otherwise?

This is why there is a separation of powers, so that each co-equal branch of government, local or federal, jealous of its power, will act to thwart subversion of its rightful power by the other branches, to force compromise, thereby arresting the worst abuses of unilateral power. This system works imperfectly, but it works...sometimes...as long as those serving in government do not place loyalty to party (or to party leader) over their own self-interest, (i.e., preservation of their own power).

Also required is the scrutiny and oversight of an informed electorate.

"Cynicism is a powerful block to people who want the government to do something about whatever."

No, cynicism is the abandonment of the idea that we, the people can influence events, the surrender to the idea that the system is irrevocably broken, (or fixed, as it were), and that nothing can ever change, so..."why bother?", as R. Crumb's despairing character put it.

"...you think that somebody or something out there offers salvation."

If "salvation" (however defined) is to be had--or, more realistically--solutions to problems--it must come from we, the people, acting together through self-governance.

"I don't want the government to solve problems. I want it to...stay out of my business."

Move to Ted Kaczynski's abandoned shack. As long as you live in a society of people, government is necessary to peacefully resolve the inevitable disputes. After all, as someone once said, "people are crappy, self-interesting (sic) and corruptible." Without an agreed upon body (i.e., government) to resolve disputes and to erect a system of law, only violence and predation and chaos will rule.

I've lived in San Francisco, Chicago, New York City and Woodstock. I know the hipster, commie mantra backwards and forwards. And, I grew up in conservative small-town Midwest.

So, thanks for the civics lesson, but as usual, you're mostly full of shit.

Moreover, too few people are well-informed, rational actors, and we are thus prey to the fear-mongers and liars who seek to influence our decisions in favor of furtherance of their goals, not ours.

This is the hipster BS writ large. I'm no longer a hipster, and I spend a lot of time in suburbia. From the farmer to the cop to the small town schoolmarm, Americans can tell you precisely their political self-interest. You just don't approve of their political self-interest. Those rubes know what your ideas are and they hate them.

They're smarter than you.

Money follows success. The Tea Party is having success and it's attracting money. Those rubes have money, and they're putting their money where their mouths are, just like everybody else. As I said, they just happen to hate your hipster/commie ideas. They aren't misinformed or ignorant. They know what you stand for and they hate it.

No, the American electorate would not embrace your ideas if it was "well informed."

The American political process is the best there is, but, no, active involvement isn't necessarily going to change anything. I've been there and done that.

Cynicism about human nature and about politicians is our best defense.

My cynicism extends especially to self-important, sanctimonious SOBs like you who think that the "masses" are stupid and that they need you for enlightenment.

You're a very articulate idiot.

You are dumb that you think I don't know where your ideas come from. I've practically got a doctorate in that BS you keep dishing out.

I don't view this as politics. We have the inital process of a revolution. If everything progresses in a manner that assures the reduction in the size of DC, then we will have a peaceful change. If not, then people are so worked up that I feel it may turn violent.

Is it me, or are there problems with Blogger today? I posted (or tried to post) a long reply to Laughing Boy, I mean, shoutingthomas, and I don't see it here. However, he shouts back at me and has copied and pasted part of the reply, so it must have appeared, even if only briefly.

Sometimes we have no one we WANT to vote for. Sometimes we are only voting against. But if we don't vote and if we don't ensure that all votes are valid (not dead people, children, pets and cartoon characters) we deserve the coming dictatorship that we will have foisted upon ourselves.

I had one rather erudite comment that got sucked into the Bermuda Blogger earlier today without anything obvious happening other than it never showed up on the blog.

One thing of note: I've been getting a lot of 503 errors lately when trying to either get into a thread from the main page or posting a comment. Sometimes, even with the error, the comment still makes it. More often, it doesn't.

I think it would be informative to have a single thread about posting in threads. An open thread where techniques, usages, HTML, tags, etc could be openly discussed in detail before Nazis are mentioned.

I'll take you at your usual earnestness instead of the obvious alternative that you perhaps voted for the "better" candidate for your candidate to run against. It does bring up the usual criticisms of "open primary" voting.

Statewide, Neumann actually did better than I expected, winning more (but less populous) counties than Walker.

Were you equally honest about Westlake? I definitely preferred him to Johnson, but also knew he had virtually no recognition at large....

I think Neumann was the far better candidate. Walker has a gimmick, but that's about it. A Brown Bag won't get you very far. I like that Neumann put together an entire plan. I didn't read it, but it's out there to look through. That's the kind of information I want when I'm making a decision.

With Walker, all I know is that he's anti-train. Well, la-dee-frickin'-da. And the amorphous "I hate government waste and all those Liberals in Madison". Again, that's slim pickings to choose on. And I can't forget that he wanted to save money by not filling vacant state positions. He just strikes me as vacant. And I don't think Barrett even wants to be Governor, he just entered the race as a favor. Rather like Castle, IMO, and there's not much to vote for in Barrett's case either. Sure, he can stop a crime in progress, but that's not a reason to vote for him.

@Robert Cook Blogger flagged your comment(s) as spam and put them in a place where I moderate. So... you don't have to keep trying to publish when that happens. You just have to wait for me to approve it, which I might not do until a few hours later. It's very helpful in keeping out spam. I could turn off this Blogger feature if I wanted to, but I like it.

Since the real Robert Cook never has anything good to say about the actual results of the democratic process, Blogger probably assumed that all that panglossian civics-class praise of the abstract process itself was the work of an impostor.

"Since the real Robert Cook never has anything good to say about the actual results of the democratic process...."

At best, the actual results of our political system will always be imperfect, mishapen, and unsatisfying...but it's the system we have, and it can work, rather than not, if the elements necessary for it to function are in place, primary among them: an informed, involved electorate to whom our representatives are answerable. If the system fails, should we dismantle it, or should we try to repair it?

Shoutingthomas urges cynicism as the great defense against...what? I'm not sure. Against bothering to repair what has gone wrong?

I do disdain our present dysfunctional system--a bankrupt empire near collapse, strained beyond its limits; the rule of law ignored by the lawmakers; the chief executive claiming for himself unilateral authority to be found nowhere in the Constitution; the open embrace of the crime of torture as legitimate American practice; the usurpation by the oligarchs of the people as the legitimate constituents whom our representatives must serve--of course I understand the impulse to cynicism. However, I believe we must not be cynical, but skeptical, a different thing altogether.

As I said in my comment that didn't post, cynicism is the surrender to the idea that nothing can change, so why bother? However, things can change and have changed: slavery was abolished; universal suffrage was gained; grotesque, overt and often violent discrimination by the majority against the minority has been outlawed; and so on.

We have historical evidence that the people, acting in concert, can effect dramatic social and political change. This gives us every reason to reject cynicism, but to remain hopeful and engaged. However, the essential leavening ingredient against a "civics class" naivete about our system must be, not cynicism, but informed skepticism and a rejection of sentimentality about any intrinsic "nobility" or "superiority" of America over any other present or historical society, a recognition that we are not a "shining city on a hill" and never have been. We must acknowledge frankly how unjust and brutal our society too often is. If we can't acknowledge that, we can't ever know where and how to apply our efforts at repair.

We must acknowledge frankly how unjust and brutal our society too often is. If we can't acknowledge that, we can't ever know where and how to apply our efforts at repair.

No, our society isn't often unjust and brutal. There are no civil rights issues remaining to be prosecuted. Enough is enough. Just because you want to continue to prattle on about civil rights to please your vanity... well fuck you.

No, we don't engage in torture. Jesus, you're an idiot. We ought to be torturing the jihadis. I'll be glad to do the torturing.

You're lost in the commie/hipster past, Cookie. The issues so dear to your heart are stale, finished and need to be shelved.

You have a romantic attachment to the 60s. That's all over. Wake up, asshole.

The cynicism of the conservative, as I made clear, is a cynicism about the nature of people. People are crappy, self-interested and wide open to corruption... all people.

You are totally corrupt. You've seen so many movies and books about the heroic struggles of the 60s that you want to relive it for the sake of your own ego and vanity. Shove it.